Slashdot Mirror
NHTSA Gives the Model S Best Safety Rating of Any Car In History
cartechboy writes "Even crashing into a wall is good news nowadays for Tesla Motors. Independent testing by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has awarded the company a 5-star safety rating, not just overall, but in every subcategory. While its five-star score across the board has been attained by other vehicles (around one percent of all cars tested are capable of such a score) its ratings in individual categories are higher than any other vehicle, including larger SUVs and minivans. What's really interesting is that part of the safety rating may be because the car is electric."
Five star safety rating across the board. Excellent! Now if only it didn't come with a five star price tag
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Don't get me wrong, the numbers are quite impressive - especially the following passage from TFA:
However, at a price point of $80 - 100K, it's going to remain a playtoy for people with money, not become the OMG super-car replacement for mom's $30K Volvo.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Or you could read the article and see that in the areas considered for the tests, many of the common safety tests wouldn't even work, they couldn't roll the car over with standard techniques, they couldn't crush the passenger compartment with a standard crusher, and they had a HUGE crumple zone.
Ridiculous. Because the gov't want to promote electric cars, will we now see artificially high safety ratings on electric cars to promote sales? Since when did the gov't get into the marketing business?
Did you get served the secret version of the articles, the one that revealed that conspiracy? The only mention of electricalness contributing to the safety rating was the speculation that the freedom of layout afforded by not having a conventional engine block allowed them to build more crumple zone into the design.
(As for governments in the marketing business, that's actually a core function: states have been asserting the legitimacy of their power through marketing since that marketing involved alleging the favor of some cryptic figures from the Sumerian pantheon, with various modifications to suit the times and advances in efficiency (the high-water mark probably being 20th century nationalism, before that Ended Badly) over time.)
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the score is undeserved?
In this case being electric helped with not having to turn off the ignition to prevent fire, have more flexibility in the positioning of elements so that more protection is added for the passenger and having so low a center of mass that they had to design a special test in order to make the car rollover since it would not do it in the normal one. Also, using spaceworthy components helped, I guess...
Or you could read the article and see that in the areas considered for the tests, many of the common safety tests wouldn't even work, they couldn't roll the car over with standard techniques, they couldn't crush the passenger compartment with a standard crusher, and they had a HUGE crumple zone.
Also, for the roof crush test the crushing machine broke before the roof did.
The Tesla Model S is an extremely well-engineered machine. It's expensive, yes, but in most respects it's simply superior to equivalently-priced luxury cars. I'm really looking forward to their next generation, which is intended to be priced more mid-market (probably in the 30s).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Because the gov't want to promote electric cars, will we now see artificially high safety ratings on electric cars to promote sales?
Wow, cynical much? Maybe, just maybe, the engineers at Tesla actually did a really good job. If the vehicle is subjected to the same tests and scores higher then what possible problem could you have with that? If you have evidence that the government somehow held Tesla to a different standard then by all means please share with the rest of the class. But if you are just being snarky then shut up.
Just find some old Pintos and have every bad guy drive those.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Gasoline engines are well noted for their ability to work underwater.
When you roll the thing over, you want it to be rigid so that it doesn't bend to intersect with your empty skull.
It is when you don't want the roof collapsing and crushing your skull in. The roof is not an area you want to be a crumple zone.
I'm not a smart man, but I wouldn't consider tanks, semi-trucks, or airplanes to be cars. SUV's in general are classified as trucks for the purposes of crash testing. Can you think of a safer CAR that has been tested? The people who do the testing can't.
Because the gov't want to promote electric cars?
I thought the government wanted to feed the oil industry? I am confused oh too many conspiracies.
They are promoting the electric car so I think it is part of the conspiracy so I will get a gas car just to show them, then that will feed into the oil industry conspiracy.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The Model S is a really heavy car, actually, almost the weight of the Ford F-150. Only a Hummer or another such extremely rare car weights significantly more. I think that speaks more for how dangerous Hummers are on the roads than how "unsafe" the Model S is. Regardless, though, the Model S is safer than any other car in its category, which is the metric that actually matters. If you're shopping for a sedan, you don't give a shit if a semi is going to give you better survival rates in a collision.
Also, don't expect safety in any vehicle above 60mph. Drive safely instead of relying on technical means to buffer a crash.
I am taking that as sarcasm. However it is tough to tell with these posts, you could just be wrong.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Not artificially high? How come North American cars don't have amber turn signals then?
They are amber, you just can't tell because nobody uses them. They just give you a gentle nudge to tell you they are changing lanes.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
In a head-on collision with another vehicle, yes weight makes a big difference. However you seem to think that headons are the only type of accidents that exist. into. But actually true headons are quite rare and make up a small percentage of accidents. (which is why NHTSA started testing offset headons and side impacts and so on because they're much more common).
Anyways there are accidents where weight hurts you rather than help you. Would you rather crash into the side of a mountain at 60mph in a M-1 Abrams tank, Humvee, or a Tesla S? How about a rollover?
I would be wary of the NHTSA front crash test ratings for the Tesla. The NHTSA front crash test is a full frontal crash into a wall at 35, while the IIHS does a more real world scenario of 25% and 40% of the bumper hitting a wall at 40mph. Without a large motor in the way Tesla is able to use the whole front compartment as a crumple zone as opposed to most combustion vehicles that primary use the sides as a crumple zone. While I don't think the ratings were manipulated they are artificially high because the Tesla design is able to game the system. Unfortunately the IIHS crash test ratings have not been released yet but I can't imagine them doing as well, in the 40% test the Tesla will have lost 60% of it crumple zone while typical combustion engines will lost a little over 50%, in the 25% test Tesla will lose 75% and the combustion engine is still at a little over 50%.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
What I'm afraid is that there will no longer be explosions when a car barely collides in movies [U+2e2e]
[Unless it is a documentary about 'accidents' like Michael Hastings'...]
Don't worry, movie producers will rig the cars with Tesla Coils and there will be an impressive array of electrical discharge arcs emanating from the car, incinerating everything in the vicinity.
How is this any different than other Rear engine design vehicles?
You say that as if the engine fan would keep working, spark plugs can keep firing, the engine doesn't flood(through, say, the tailpipe, or oil system), or a ton of other basic risks. All an electric motor needs to keep working is insulation to prevent shorts. Which it SHOULD have anyways.
I'm no car safety engineer, but I suspect that's nonsense. If I understand modern car cabin safety engineering correctly, the whole point is to make the cabin itself very rigid, but it is surrounded by energy-absorbing crumple zones outside of it to absorb impacts. That's accomplished by having the front, end, and sides of the cars deformable. By contrast it's not exactly normal for roofs (or for that matter, the bottom of a car) to be subjected to head-on collisions. Typically roofs need to support the weight of a car if it flips over, and in that case roof deformation is *not* desirable because any reduction in the size of the cabin would lead to compression of the passengers.
Because US regulations don't require them while other markets do. The Europeans and Japanese just don't bother to make market-specific taillights, they just follow the Euro regs which also meet US regs.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Without a large motor in the way Tesla is able to use the whole front compartment as a crumple zone as opposed to most combustion vehicles that primary use the sides as a crumple zone. While I don't think the ratings were manipulated they are artificially high because the Tesla design is able to game the system.
Explain to me exactly how having an enormous crumple zone in front of the driver is somehow a bad thing. Would you rather have an engine pushed into your lap from a frontal collision? Their is no evidence I've seen that their ratings are "artificially high". The results are what they are.
Wasn't the next tesla vehicle going to compete against the $50k luxury SUV's?
In this case, this is the "next" vehicle that you heard about. You were either reading an old article, or read an article before the introduction of the model S.
"His name was James Damore."
unless your brain is resting against the roof/ceiling of the car, the energy isn't going to be transferred from the roof to your brain.
which is precisely why you want the roof and its support pillars to be rigid enough that it wont crush your head.
stupid AC.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Weight has nothing to do with it. Realize that a hard ridged vehicle, if not designed properly, would transfer all the energy to the passenger which would kill you due to internal injuries. Even a light car with the proper design of crumple zones can be safer than a large heavy vehicle.
Don't start quoting physics when you clearly don't understand how car frame design works.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Just require that all of the wiring be made of conductive thermite. Then, if a wire gets too hot, WHOOSH!! Perfectly adequate fireball, with the added bonus of being impossible to extinguish. Magnesium wiring would do, but it's possible to put a magnesium fire out. One might also make the body out of rocket fuel.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Um, who cares....it's not gaming the system if it in FACT keeps the passengers safer.
If the color of turn signals is the main plank of your safety argument, you've failed.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
During one of the presidential debates, Mitt Romney named Tesla a failure, and claimed that the loan given to Tesla by the DOE was a waste of taxpayer money. This drove the stock down to $25 per share. I wish I'd bought then, because that stock is now around $140 per share, and climbing.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
in what way does the roof ever need to absorb energy?? the only time the roof needs to do anything is when the car rolls over, in which case its now supporting the weight of the car.
having even a little bit of give means crushing your empty AC skull.
so no, the roof absolutely does NOT need to absorb any energy.
in fact, if you look, the majority of the passenger compartment is designed to be fairly rigid.
all the crumple zones and energy absorbtion engineering is placed outside the passenger compartment.
stupid AC.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The majority of rear engine cars and all mid engine cars are not family sedans where crash test ratings are the selling point.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Seems to me that the roll cages welded into racecars around the world are rigid. Last time I checked that includes rollbars on pickup trucks and roll bars in convertibles and the like. In a roll over if you have your seat belt on like I did then you head should not be in contact with the roof for the energy to transfer to your empty skull.
im not sure i would call taking advantage of engine placement choice "gaming the system". that makes it sound like cheating, which it isnt. its simply smart engineering.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
You might want to measure how much of a crumple zone a roof might have. My car has about 2" before it's impacting my head. Sides have 4-6", and then it's impacting my arm.
Or you could keep calling people names. Since you probably aren't old enough to drive a car.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
While I don't think the ratings were manipulated they are artificially high because the Tesla design is able to game the system.
Designing the car with safety in mind is not "gaming the system". The ratings are not "artificially high", they are "actually high". Obviously safety was a major design concern for Tesla, and this is the result. There is nothing artificial nor "cheating" about it. They specifically designed the car with a huge front crumple zone.
Saying that Tesla's ratings are artificially high is about the same as saying a combustion engine car has artificially low ratings because of a huge engine block in the front that does not crumple. The ratings are not artificial, they are what they are because of how the car is designed.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
also your numbers seem somewhat made up.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
No idiot, he's right, you're wrong. Cars typically don't take impact on the roof, and there are only a few inches of room to crush before your spine starts to get crushed. Race cars use solid-as-fuck roll cages to keep the roof from absorbing any energy, it seems to work well.
In fact most purpose-built race cars have a space frame that is EXTREMELY rigid with carbon fiber/aluminum honeycomb "crash boxes" stuck to the front and rear bumpers that act as crumple zones.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Gasoline engines do not work when submerged. They require high voltage electrical sparks to ignite the fuel. Being submerged robs them of the spark they need to run. You would have to do special waterproofing of all of the engine's electrical works before it can run submerged.
Diesel engines, on the other hand, do not use spark plugs or electrical components (other than for starting the motor), so all you need is a snorkel. Those Humvees and Land-Rovers you see crossing rivers and streams with the snorkels all have diesel engines.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
That at least might be realistic when compared to a half empty 15 gallon gas tank creating a blast the size of a house or two.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Why?
Most of these scores are not based on just the cost. But on the novel design approaches. Elon Musk is building Tesla's like space ships. Using more advanced design techniques. Most automobiles are 30 year old engineering. And you may pay $100,000 for a BMW. But it's really not that much more advanced in construction than a Chevy.
Tesla went and said, let's design from the ground up and use all ideas. And that's why they did things differently. The cheaper vehicles will likely be cheaper because of performance grade of the motors will be gone, less refinement and comforts, and namely, the R&D expenditure will be re-couped.
"And just how strong is the Model S roof, which is secured with aerospace-grade bolts? It broke a testing machine that was pushing down on the roof with the equivalent of the weight of four cars."
Four cars? Pshaw. Forty years ago my Volvo could bench press 6.
http://imgur.com/kmdoVYR
The Model X.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Numbers!
Tesls S: 4647
Base 4x2 F150:4685
base 4x4 F150 5000
The 5th Gen Camero weight about 3700
BWM 5 series 3700.
The ford focus 2960 pounds
Just for some idea of how much cars weigh.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wrong question; what you should be asking is, "why spend 100K, when I can buy a car with an almost equivalent safety rating for leas than half that price?
You can buy a car with a 5 star safety rating AND which performs like a Tesla for half the money? Where can I find this incredible vehicle?
Nobody buys a car just for the safety rating. Your argument is a strawman.
You would be wrong in expecting that, the Tesla uses its center as a crumple zone if the sides are too stiff in the NHTSA test the car will stop too fast leading to injuries in the crash test dummies and a poor rating. Because of this it is fair to assume that the sides are not as strong as another 5 star crash test recipient with a front combustion engine. If there is only a partial impact the combustion engine still has half its crumple zone while the Tesla will have 25%.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Name one besides the 911?
Rear/mid engine cars:
Pontiac Fiero
Porsche Boxster
Acura NSX
Toyota MR2
Smart Fourtwo
Ford GT40
Many different designs and price points.
You know, people like the IIHS, NHTSA, certification groups for all the major motorsports. Who knew rollbars weren't necessary!?
You realize the rollbars are there to prevent the roof from being crushed into the passenger, right? They are there to provide stiffness, so the roof doesn't come crashing on the driver. That's not really backing up the AC.
You want to dissipate the energy with crumpling, but you don't want to crumple into the driver or passengers. That means that at some point it needs to get really rigid. Deform by a certain amount, but never deform beyond a particular point. Considering the NHTSA gave the vehicle 5 stars, I'm pretty sure their machine broke before crushing past the point it's not supposed to.
Gasoline engines do not work when submerged. They require high voltage electrical sparks to ignite the fuel. Being submerged robs them of the spark they need to run. You would have to do special waterproofing of all of the engine's electrical works before it can run submerged.
Growing up as a 'river rat,' partying with crazed rednecks and their beater 4x4s on the river beds has imparted me with the knowledge that what you say here is decidedly not true. Theoretically, you're right, but practical observation defies that theory. Hell, the most I've ever seen anyone do as far as waterproofing was to RTV their distributor shut, and even that was considered overkill.
Diesel engines, on the other hand, do not use spark plugs or electrical components (other than for starting the motor), so all you need is a snorkel. Those Humvees and Land-Rovers you see crossing rivers and streams with the snorkels all have diesel engines.
Bullshit - I've seen far, far more 6-cylinder gasoline Jeeps successfully taking a swim than anything else, save maybe Chenowth dune buggies powered by 50-year-old VW engines.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I think you know just enough about physics to make a dangerous conclusion. Following a collision, Either car will go in reverse direction only if there is any kinetic energy left from the impact. The whole point of the much tasked about crumple zones is to absorb the energy from the impact and prevent the cars from behaving like bouncing balls. There is sufficient energy absorption capacity in either car to avoid your scenario. Take for instance a Hummer running dead into a wall at medium speed; it would bounce off the wall very far. The reason is because ask the energy is absorbed in the impact. The Tesla had enough of a crumple zone (much more than any other car) to avoid a scenario where three is excess energy that would push the car back. What really kills people are either (a) G forces from an impact (and having a car like a Hummer with little or no energy absorption creates higher impact G forces) or (b) cabin deformation that injures the passengers. The Tesla scores high on impact absorption and deformation resistance and is therefore the safer car.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
You say that as if the engine fan would keep working, spark plugs can keep firing, the engine doesn't flood(through, say, the tailpipe, or oil system), or a ton of other basic risks. All an electric motor needs to keep working is insulation to prevent shorts. Which it SHOULD have anyways.
... this is why engineers sometimes annoy me.
"It doesn't fit the model, therefore it can't work!"
Well, Skippy, I hate to break it to ya, but gasoline engines very much DO operate underwater, presuming dry airflow to the intake (and from the exhaust) is maintained. Just plug something like "Jeep drives under water" into Youtube for examples.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The Tesla is very safe for full frontal impacts but that is not a real world scenario so those ratings must be taken with a huge grain of salt.
It is a good gauge that correlates well to real world performance. You have no reason to doubt the generalizable of the results. Much like most side-impacts into poles aren't with the car stationary and the pole moving at an exact angle into the side of the car. What if the angle is less or more? Carnage could result. Given the apparent structural strength of the sides (from the side impact tests), and the front performance, why wouldn't one expect the offset crash to perform better, not worse, given your assertion that the side impact test performance increases with the level of strength in the sides?
Given the results and your own logic, I come to the opposite conclusion. It will do *better* in the offset tests than reflected in the full-frontal test. Though I think it will, in practice, only do as well as it did in the frontal, as your logic is flawed.
Learn to love Alaska
The problem with your theory is that they designed the tests to reflect real-world crashes.
Learn to love Alaska
Bullshit. NO one buys electric cars because they uniformly suck and this is clearly just the fucking government trying to push them on us. But why am I arguing with dumbass statists on Slashdot AGAIN?
I see them on a near-daily basis. When you say "NO one" what you really mean is only people who can afford to spend $70K on a car. Granted that's not a lot of people, but in order for costs to be driven down we need those early adopters with deep pockets.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
If they gamed the system, passengers will be safer in accidents similar to the test, but potentially less safe in other accidents.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Yep, lots of guys put snorkel air intakes on their jeeps and go through rivers, without a PCV system the only other place for water to enter a running engine is through the gas cap which can't be water/air tight because you'd cause a vacuum that your fuel pump could never pull against.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
This is just like the recent XKCD. Percentages are meaningless without bases. The Tesla will have lost more of its crumple zone - of which it has A LOT MORE TOTAL by your own earlier statement.
You know it's a violation of law to remove your bumper dynamite and zero G sensor?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If the government doesn't want to promote IC engines, why are we spending more than a trillion dollars a year securing oil fields on the other side of the planet?
Learn to love Alaska
His theory is that because of no engine the energy absorbing elements in the front end will be more spread out and while that's good for a full-front test, there will be less of them for a partial-front impact. He neglects the possibility that the improvement in full-front results is from simply adding more energy absorbing elements (like the floor, which most cars don't have under the engine). Until there's corroboration from either design docs or test results, I'm not worrying about it.
Gas tank breather kit, runs a breather line to the snorkel level.
Tesla has a lot of cross bracing in the front that normally would not be possible in a front engine car. There's a massive pillar that goes between the top of the front suspension. Since the battery pack is under the entire passenger compartment and has steel plates it helps further strengthen the passenger compartment.
The front bumper is connected to two hexagonal extruded aluminum bars designed to absorb the impact.
I have seen some pictures of Teslas that have been in some very bad accidents. In one, a BMW M5 ran a stop sign at 60MPH and hit the front quarter panel of the Tesla. All occupants were OK though.
Pictures: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/17190-Major-accident-for-me-tonight-(5-26)-(New-P85-arrives-7-8)?p=348987&viewfull=1#post348987
Tesla head-on with a Honda Accord: (sadly the accord occupants did not survive) http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-safe
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
While the pictures may not show it, I saw a Model X in person at the Tesla factory. It is nearly the size of an Expedition so I think it will fill the role nicely as either since it can comfortably seat 7 adults with extra storage under the frunk.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
You are wrong.
Just as an extreme example, imagine a 10 ton vehicla hitting a 1 ton vehicle head-on, both traveling at the same speed. The 10 ton vehicle will just slow down a bit (less than 20%) while the 1 ton vehicle will be catapulted backwards. Just basic conservation of momentum. Which of the two drivers will be better off, you think? The one whose speed was suddenly almost inverted, or the one whose speed was only reduced by less than 20%?
Or let's make it even more extreme: an ocean liner at cruising speed hitting a rubber dingy (the latter having a very nice cushioning protection zone while the former is very rigid and therefore, according to your theory, would kill all of its passengers). Somehow I think the passengers of the ocean liner will be better off.
Obviously these are exaggerated examples, but the math still works for smaller differences in mass. I agree that lots of other parameters matter as well (crumple zones etc.) but the heavier car will have a smaller change in velocity during the initial hit and therefore its passenger will too.
If the car crashes into some very rigid fixed object (a thick concrete wall, for example), the weight of the car won't matter. But it certainly will when crashing into another car.
Either car will go in reverse direction only if there is any kinetic energy left from the impact.
You are not entirely correct.
When two cars hit each other, there's not just conservation of energy but also conservation of momentum. Momentum doesn't get changed by crumple zones. They will only reduce the bounce, i.e. the relative speed (if any) with which the vehicles will move away from each other after the impact. But if a heavy vehicle hits a lighter vehicle head on at the same speed, the lighter vehicle will always be thrown backward.
Suppose both cars have a speed v, and their masses are m1 and m2, m1 being smaller. Then, if the crumple zones absorb the maximum possible amount of energy they can, the cars will both end up moving at a speed of v*(m2-m1)/(m1+m2) in the direction the heavier car was going in. If less energy was absorbed by the crumple zones, the light car will be going backward faster and the heavier car will be slowed down more or even get thrown backward as well.
Crumple zones do matter, obviously. They are certainly a good thing, but they won't magically bring all cars to a stop if they have different weights. They spread out the impact over a slightly longer period and reduce the amount of bounce, both resulting in less G-forces on the occupants.